Tag Archives: Erin O’Toole

Roundup: Not calling out conspiracy theories

Posted on by

Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant has been spreading conspiracy theories about the Liberals on her YouTube channel, and in conversations with campus conservative clubs, and how does The Canadian Press frame it? “Tory MP Cheryl Gallant accused of peddling ‘deranged conspiracy theories’ by Liberals.”

No.

Gallant outright peddled batshit lunacy, and CP went and both-sided the it rather than point out what Gallant was up to. “The Liberals say this. The Conservatives say this. Who’s right? You decide!” No, that’s not good enough. This is exactly the reason why political leaders realised that they could get away with outright lying to people – because they’re not being called out on it, since these outlets feel the need to be performatively “objective” and “fair,” and both-sides rather than be objective in pointing out that the kinds of things Gallant is saying are outrageous falsehoods in the headline and lead paragraphs. And speaking of leaders who lie, what was Erin O’Toole’s response when this was brought up? That this was just the Liberals trying to create a distraction. Seriously, that’s what he said. So, he’s tacitly endorsing that this is the kind of thing that’s okay in his party. Then again, he’s been fine with the outrageous lies being told by his MPs in Question Period and on social media, and has contributed more than a few of them himself, so I’m not sure why I’m surprised that he hasn’t drawn the line at behaviour like Gallant’s.

Another case in point of how media is doing active harm has been the way the COVAX Facility has been framed, as every single outlet calls it a way to give vaccines to poor countries as though it’s some kind of charity. It’s not, and that framing is wrong, and actually undermines the programme. (Case in point here). The whole gods damned point of COVAX is for wealthy countries like Canada to sign up and get doses from them so that it encourages them to invest and use their capital to leverage vaccine manufacturers to scale up production, and gives heft to the bulk purchases so that low-income countries can get equitable access. Yes, it has a separate arm that is solely about donations, but the main programme relies on countries like Canada to buy doses from there, not just donate money. And yet you wouldn’t know it ready or listening to any media outlet in this country. (And seriously – the reason other G7 countries have not taken their doses is because the only vaccine available through COVAX at this point is the AstraZeneca vaccine, which those countries are apparently producing for themselves so they don’t need that vaccine.) But hey, there is an established narrative that the media consensus has decided to feed into rather than taking ten minutes to read the gods damned GAVI website to understand how it works so that they can describe it properly, and we must service the narrative, right?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Aping the Americans for the sake of chaos

Posted on by

I frequently chide NDP leader Jagmeet Singh for his propensity to create jurisdictional confusion with the intent of making promises he can’t keep, and trying to make the Liberal government look unwilling to help (when they simply don’t have levers at their disposal), and yet, he keeps it up, again and again, and refuses to be called out on this particular brand of bullshit. And yesterday was case in point, yet again, as he laid out how an NDP government (post-election) would handle the vaccine distribution – using the military, and setting up federal vaccination sites.

As you can expect, this particular pledge is just more bullshit masquerading as a solution to which problems don’t actually exist. Oh, and yet another example of Singh simply lifting what the American Democrats are doing and insisting that it’ll also work for Canada. Never mind that in the US, where they don’t have public health care, the need for military intervention in the problem is more acute, especially as the rollout is a complete gong show in many states. This is not really a problem here, even though certain provincial governments are less than competent – but it’s certainly not the problem that the Americans are facing, so we don’t need their solutions. This having been said, while Singh thinks that federal vaccination sites will speed up delivery, the problem is not human resources, for which provinces have plenty of trained people and access to Red Cross volunteers, but it’s largely logistics. The notion of setting up federal sites in parallel to existing provincial ones, where it’s unlikely that their IT will communicate well (seriously, every province has their own IT systems and health record formats), and they will only create back-end confusion that will simply cause chaos in trying to determine who has been vaccinated with which product, and whether they’ve had both doses, and how to contact people who need second dose appointments if you have two systems that don’t interface well. There is no world in which this ends well. He should know this and ensure that the federal role is to ensure provinces have all the support they need, but no, he needs to keep trying to inflate the federal role (probably so that he can look like the hero).

His particular demands for publicly-owned vaccine and PPE manufacturing is also problematic in a number of ways. We can all see the need for some domestic manufacturing capability of PPE, it would seem to me that public ownership is a solution in search of a problem, particularly given that federal management of emergency stockpiles was not exactly stellar. As for publicly owned vaccine manufacturing, which particular platform would this entail? It’s highly unlikely that a publicly-owned vaccine manufacturer would have invested in mRNA technology while it was still unproven for wide-scale vaccinations, which wouldn’t do us any good in the current environment. I get that they have an ideological bent to public ownership, but articulate the problems you’re trying to solve – something that they refuse to do when called out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An oncoming vaccine delivery crunch

Posted on by

It looks like the vaccine delays are at an end, with ramped up deliveries planned through to the end of March, and Pfizer’s Canadian president insisting that they fully plan to meet their contracted deadlines. Add to that, there is more talk of AstraZeneca vaccines on the way (which could be from India as well as the US), but as has been pointed out in this breakdown of vaccine delivery math, this is going to put more pressure on provinces to get those doses into arms.

Why is that concerning? Well, provincial government competence is a very live concern. Ontario, for example, still hasn’t set up a web portal or call centre to book appointments for vaccinations, when they’ve been caterwauling that they need more doses – only, whoops, it turns out that they can’t even bloody count the doses they’ve delivered and they only delivered half as many as they thought they had. That’s not exactly encouraging (particularly because the government is being run by a gang of incompetent murderclowns).

Add to that, Ontario’s ethical framework for vaccine priorities is far more confused than it should be. Would that this government could get its act together, but no. This is only making a bad situation worse, but remember, everyone has to keep praising Ford for how he really exceeded his (low) expectations, rather than holding him to account for the thousands of unnecessary deaths that have occurred on his watch.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Putting vaccine procurement facts on the record

Posted on by

There was a very important interview released yesterday, with the co-chair of the government’s vaccine task force, which blew most of the narratives about the vaccine procurement out of the water. Particularly, it goes through the evaluation of domestic production capacity and candidate development, the decision to create a broad portfolio of vaccine candidates from international sources, and the fact that CanSino was just one of several options – it was never “all of our eggs,” as the Conservatives continue to lie about. She talks about how long it takes to build bio-manufacturing capacity, and people demanding that it be done overnight are like trying to tell a farmer to grow his crops faster. There are just so many falsehoods that the opposition has been circulating in order to give the impression that the federal government has been incompetent in their handling of this vaccine procurement, which this government has not been effective in pushing back against, even when the media does finally get Anita Anand to give proper answers – which tend not to stick in people’s minds. This notion that the government was simply incapable of signing good deals is ridiculous but corrosive (indeed, the opposition parties spent the whole day trying to use the Health Committee’s production powers to force the release of the vaccine contracts, in spite of the fact that they have rigid non-disclosure clauses, for which Liberals on the committee were filibustering), and yet here we are. So, it was good to finally get an interview with one of the people at the centre of this on the record, but man, it should not have taken this long.

Meanwhile, after Manitoba put on a dog and pony show about procuring their own domestically produced vaccines (which couldn’t happen until the end of the year at the earliest), Jason Kenney announced that he would do the same, but started talking about how the company – Provenance – would need 50 million doses ordered before they could properly scale up and produce them, and he wanted other provinces to sign up – err, at a point when everyone in the country should be vaccinated already – and insisted that they could simply sell surplus doses abroad. Well, the CEO of that company went on Power & Politics yesterday to say that oh no, Kenney must have been poorly briefed, and there was no 50 million dose minimum, and if they’re only contracted for two million doses, they’ll produce two million doses – but I’m not sure which of them to believe, because while Kenney is not exactly an honest broker, it’s quite possible he said the quiet part out loud when it comes to Provenance (though the industry minister is supposed to be meeting with the CEO today, so we’ll see).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford is steering Ontario into the third wave

Posted on by

Ontario is seeing the biggest rise in the B117 variant of COVID – known colloquially as the UK variant – and yet Doug Ford is promising to start lifting restrictions later this week. We’ve only just gotten first doses to residents of long-term care facilities, and even those vaccinations won’t have a dent in ICU admissions, and yet, Ford and company are barrelling ahead with nonsensical plans. Another example was to delay March Break until April, ostensibly to prevent travel (because there is always travel over holidays), but it seems to also fly in the face of measures related to closing schools to prevent more spread, and that it could have had that utility.

Nevertheless, the province’s own modelling shows a disastrous third wave oncoming because of these more transmissible variants, and point to the need to keep up current restrictions. Ford plans to go ahead with loosening them. And then there was this remarkable exchange where a TVO reporter asked if the province was headed for disaster on this current course, and the public health officials essentially confirmed it.

Ontario is being governed by a group of murderclowns. There is no other explanation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s use of stock photos is telling

Posted on by

You may have noticed that Erin O’Toole has been launching a new social media campaign about the dire state of our economy, using stock photo images to illustrate his points. Over my years in journalism, I have come to be very wary of the use of stock images by parties in their advertising, because much of it is inherently deceptive or manipulative (aside from being cheap to slap into their products) – and I will fully credit Glen McGregor for this.

So, what have we seen with two of O’Toole’s posts? One of them was about January’s brutal job numbers, accompanied by a stock photo of a young white guy in a hoodie, looking somewhat distressed. The problem? Those same job numbers showed disproportionate losses among women and visible minorities because the most affected sectors were wholesale and retail trade, as well as accommodation and food services – which makes sense given all of the closures in the second wave. In other words, the images he put up was not only tone deaf, but speaks to just who he thinks his voter base will respond sympathetically to, which says a lot. (The only upside here is that he model was actually Canadian and not a Romanian, but when said model found out about it, he chimed in).

https://twitter.com/TunaPhish09/status/1359408430264377347

O’Toole posted another one yesterday about standing up for Canadian workers, using a photo of a (white) construction worker. But again, if you look at last month’s job numbers, construction jobs were actually up – they were the main driver of goods-producing jobs (which were a net gain rather than a net loss on the month). Again, though, this is about what O’Toole is signalling what kinds of jobs he thinks matters, and it’s not where the losses have been. As he starts to make a lot of noise about his recovery plans and supposed economic dream team, he is sending very loud signals about what he thinks the recovery should look like, and it appears to be pretty divorced from what everyone else thinks it should look like, and that is something worth paying attention to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CSIS has a warning and a request

Posted on by

The head of CSIS gave a rare speech yesterday, in which he did two things – called for more modernisations to the CSIS Act in order to let the organisation collect more digital information, and to warn about state actors who are targeting the country’s economic secrets, often though partnerships that they then take advantage of (pointing the finger on this one specifically at China).

Meanwhile, here’s former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis’ assessment of what she heard in the speech, which has a few interesting insights.

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359213965851697154

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359213967906865152

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359214670624792576

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359215146657341441

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359215476224704512

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s risky, ideological experiment

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole met with the Toronto Star’s editorial board yesterday, and indicated that any election won’t be his doing, which would indicate that he’s in no rush to call non-confidence with this government – and why would he? Should he topple the government (in a pandemic), he would not only have to wear that decision, but also try to explain how he would do things differently around things like vaccine procurement – something which he won’t actually do because he knows that we don’t have the domestic capacity to produce them, and that the current delays are outside of this government’s control. He won’t say those things out loud, because he needs to create a narrative about this government “failing,” even though he couldn’t do any better, but the truth has apparently never been a barrier for O’Toole (nor his predecessor).

What O’Toole is trying to do is set up a competing narrative for the post-pandemic recovery, where he gets to frame the Liberals’ plans of “build back better” – focused on green and inclusive growth – as being some kind of risky, ideologically-driven “experimentation.” The problem with this, of course, is that his plans for getting the economy back to status quo is that the old normal led us to this point – including the thousands of deaths that happened as a result of this pandemic. It would seem to me that trying to get to the old normal is risky and ideological, because they have proven to have failed, and were stifling growth – remember that calls for inclusive growth predate the pandemic and were highlighted by those radical ideologues at the Bank of Canada as a necessary pathway if the Canadian economy was to continue growing at a point where we had reached “full employment” and future growth was going to be constrained. Nevertheless, O’Toole is pandering to a voter base (and, frankly, a pundit class) that fails to see that the future economic drivers are going to be the green economy and ensuring that we get more women and minorities into the workforce. For a party that likes to fancy itself as “good economic managers,” they seem to be completely blinkered on where the market is heading, and are trying to chart a path that everyone else is rapidly abandoning.

Meanwhile, O’Toole’s finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, has been putting on a big dog and pony show about our unemployment rate over the past few days, and thinks he has a winning line in talking about “paycheques versus credit card debt,” but he’s basing it on a false premise that unemployment figures are directly comparable – they’re not, and as a former employment minister, he knows that and is lying to you. (He also knows that places like the US have their economies opened with massive death tolls as a result, but those are just details, right?)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not fussed about Payette’s pension

Posted on by

For the past week, in the wake of Julie Payette’s resignation, we have seen the various cheap outrage stories and QP attacks circling around. How dare she get her generous pension if she voluntarily resigned under a cloud of scandal? Why should Canadians have to pay for this? (Usually followed by the usual republican nonsense that falsely equates how much Canada’s contribution to the monarchy is and which grossly underestimates how much more an elected head of state would cost compared to the system we have in place now).

While Parliament could theoretically alter the laws that guarantee Payette her pension, trying to do so retroactively would invite a lawsuit that the government would be hard-pressed to win. Not to mention, the fact that she walked away without causing a constitutional crisis is probably worth the pension (because seriously, that could have been very ugly and messy). As for the additional annuity that former GGs are afforded to support any duties related to their time as GG that carry on afterward, be it speeches or answering letters, I’m less fussed about that because I think it’s healthy that we have people who are interested in keeping up civic duties once their term is over (especially as we don’t have ready-enough access to members of the royal family for that kind of thing), but would welcome additional transparency and reporting around that. It does, however, help make the somewhat ageist case that we shouldn’t appoint GGs that are too young because what do they then follow it up with after holding the second highest office in the country? (See: Michaëlle Jean’s time as head of the Francophonie). We also have to remember that things like a GG’s pension are made generous enough because it’s part of institutional independence – we don’t want a prime minister to threaten that pension if they aren’t going to get their way. It’s actually the same logic behind why you want a monarchy to be rich – so that they have independent wealth and that can’t be used as leverage by a government. Of course, Canadians have been conditioned to revel in hairshirt parsimony after the Reform Party years and media that delights in the response they get from cheap outrage stories, so we’re going to keep getting them, no matter how inappropriate and damaging to our institutions that they actually are.

Meanwhile, Erin O’Toole has been making the rounds claiming that Justin Trudeau would be in a “conflict of interest” if he chose the next GG on his own, and I just cannot with this completely illiterate nonsense. There would be no conflict because the GG acts on the advice of the prime minister – he or she is not going to say no if Trudeau decides to call an election, because there are no grounds for them to do so. The only time they have any kind of discretion around this is if the incumbent demands another election right after he or she ostensibly lost one, and if there is a viable alternative, the GG has every right to ask the incumbent to see if they can maintain confidence, and if not, another party can be invited to form government. There is this perception that the vice-regal has a truckload of discretion in these matters, and they simply don’t. More to the point, having the opposition sign-off on a new GG would then allow Trudeau to launder the prerogative and accountability for the decision to advise the Queen on that person, which we do not want. That’s not how Responsible Government works. Yes, there is merit to restoring the vice-regal appointments committee (but it’s too late for Payette’s replacement, because that process should have started months ago), but even then, the PM still has the final say from the names put to him on the short-list, as well he should. O’Toole is trying to sow confusion, and is giving further disinformation as to how our system works, which is very bad because it’s that kind of thing that undermines democratic norms. Knock it off!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Political theatre over terrorist listings

Posted on by

After Question Period yesterday, Jagmeet Singh rose to propose a motion that the government get serious about tackling white supremacy, which included listing the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization. After a brief interruption where Elizabeth May wanted the Soldiers of Odin added to that list – which was ruled procedurally out of order – Singh’s motion passed, and it was a big social media coup for him, which was also turned into a fundraising pitch so that they could “keep the pressure up” on the Liberals to actually go through with it.

The problem? This is all political theatre – and dangerous political theatre at that. The motion was non-binding, and does not automatically list the Proud Boys, but serves as political direction for the relevant national security agencies to do so, but they can’t actually do that, because there are clear processes set out in law to do so. The Conservatives tried this a few years ago with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and to have them listed – which still hasn’t been done, because there’s a process, and established criteria that it appears they don’t meet the threshold of under existing Canadian law.

To add to that, this kind of precedent should be absolutely alarming because it was a year ago that there were people demanding that Indigenous protesters blockading railways be declared “terrorists,” and if this were up to votes in the Commons (though, granted, this was a motion that required unanimous consent), that could turn bad very, very fast. There are established processes for terrorist listings for a reason, and they should be respected – not being used so that MPs can pat themselves on the back and virtue-signal that they oppose white supremacy. That doesn’t solve problems and can make the jobs of legitimate national security agencies more difficult, but hey, MPs get to make some hay over Twitter, so that’s what counts, right?

Continue reading →